> Since (as you indicate) one should not place properties in
> the default namespace, having the default be something that
> we discourage and is likely to not occur, does not make much
> sense to me.
I think what Julian pointed out is different. A live property in the NULL
namespace would need to be represented. XML allows elements to have no
namespace. DAV did not forbid this.
> The fact that the default is the DAV: namespace is specified
> in the DTD declaration in the protocol. We could repeat that
> in text I suppose.
That's not true, and I would object to that if it were true. Anything can
be the default namespace, or you don't need to have one. The default
namespace is declared in each document. E.g.
<mydoc xmlns="foo" xmlns:D="DAV:">
<D:prop><D:getcontentlength/></D:prop>
<more-stuff-in-default-ns>
</mydoc>
In the above example, the foo namespace is the default. None of these is
the NULL namespace.
<mydoc xmlns:D="DAV:">
<D:prop><D:getcontentlength/></D:prop>
<more-stuff-in-default-ns>
</mydoc>
In the second example, the default namespace is in the NULL namespace. There
are two elements in the NULL namespace.
Both DAV clients and servers must be able to accept DAV request/response
bodies where DAV: is the default namespace, where some other namespace is
the default namespace, and where the null namespace is the default
namespace. Both clients and servers need to be able to handle extensions
that are in the null namespace.
lisa